Where have all the good countries gone?
In a lot of the discussions in this little corner of the internets - Aretae, Foseti, Devin, Isegoria, Borepatch, me - we seem to get occasionally stuck in our arguments over terminology. Aretae, in Democracy - A Curse? and in the comments lumps together personages like Louis XIV and Lenin. Me, I think there's a world of difference between the two. From his anarcho-libertarian pov, he isn't resolving the distance between the two.
I see a monarch, an authoritarian on one hand; and a totalitarian on the other. The two types of leader produce different types of outcomes.
So, why don't we identify nations and times where we thought things were working? We can all agree that Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Hitler's Germany were all trainwrecks, for obvious reasons. Aretae has pointed to the Swiss Confederation as a successful (and over a long period, too) nation emitting lots of magical problem-solving growth. The formalists have pointed to Hong Kong and Singapore. Other nations that have been mentioned, too - 18th C England, slightly earlier in Holland, 19th C America.
What are we forgetting? The Hanseatic League? Argentina before Peron? Chile after Pinochet?
If we can point to a place and time that had a happy thing going, we can maybe suss out what factors were contributing to the success at that time in that place. Then, we can compare them.
If we can come up with a list in the comments, maybe we could break, and do a little googling, and come back with some thoughts on each. Or better, research one that is not to our inclination - Aretae should do Singapore, and I should do low government Holland, and so on. What say you?
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Ken, good to have you back. …
Ken, good to have you back. You might be interested in the ongoing debate over at aretae's blog. Check out, most recently, Democracy -A Curse? Libertarians v. Formalists, the new sport all the kids aren't talking about.
I agree that Willie and Louis were absolutist - no argument there, but u still believe that there is a vast difference in style, one that you can see in the respective death tolls of their own citizens. Some similarities, but at core vast difference.
@Buckethead -
Here's my favorite scott sumner post ever, arguing that modern denmark should be on the list.
I took a different take, and started by trying to figure out the forms of government, and then trying to categorize data points (historical regimes). Then hopefully by looking at which forms of government have done the best, we may be able to learn something. I just made my post, I'd love any thoughts.
That said, going case by case through various regimes, and trying to figure out which parts worked, and which didn't, is also useful.
I've been trying to figure out how the Hanseatic cities were ruled, but it's not that easy to get information. It seems they had a council based on an aristocracy of merchants, but I'm trying to figure out more.
I'd have to go along with the argument that Louis XIV and Lenin are more alike than they are different. To be sure, there are monarchs and there are monarchs, but the Sun King was as absolutist as they come. Kaiser Bill would have liked to be that kind of autocrat, but he was (inefficiently) restrained by the Prussian/German constitution (I'm reading Massie's Dreadnought right now, and I recommend it highly). The Bourbons didn't enjoy the technological edge that the Bolsheviks did, nor a populace as inured to brutality and autocracy.
I had occasion to read, a year or so back, a pamphlet by Rothbard (I think it was) that made out a fair case that Pennsylvania for a period of years in the 1680s(?) had no effective government, and got on just fine.
Great...but I'm personally a great fan of the modern anglo-decendants in asia. LKY's autobiography was amazing...I think he may list as one of the most impotant positive factors of the 20th. I'd need prussia or some such. And someone ought to hit switzerland too
So, to start the list: 18th…
So, to start the list: 18th
Singapore
Hong Kong
18th C England (should 19th C be a different entry?)
17th - C Holland
Switzerland
18th C Prussia
19th C America
Those have their good qualities. Edge cases might include pre-peronist Argentina, post-Pinochet Chile, the Hanse, Macao, France (because of its many changes of government), some of the Renaissance Italian city states.
What else?